221
Post by: Frazzled
Support your local smoker-he's paying your mortgage, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Smoking Tax Free Crack
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke
Cigarette Tax Increase Angers Smokers
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.
To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.
The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. That represents a step toward achieving another promise, to make sure all kids are covered.
Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich.
His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax.
The White House contends Obama's campaign pledge left room for measures such as the one financing children's health insurance.
"The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured."
In some instances during the campaign, Obama was plainly talking about income, payroll and investment taxes, even if he did not say so.
Other times, his point appeared to be that heavier taxation of any sort on average Americans is the wrong prescription in tough times.
"Listen now," he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, "I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
An unequivocal "any tax" pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum.
"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."
The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
"I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.
Jamieson noted GOP ads that claimed Obama would raise taxes on electricity and home heating oil. "They rebutted both with the $250,000 claim," she said of the Obama campaign, "so they did extend the rebuttal beyond income and payroll."
Government and private research has found that smoking rates are higher among people of low income.
A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers.
Federal or state governments often turn for extra tax dollars to the one in five Americans who smoke, and many states already hit tobacco users this year. So did the tobacco companies, which raised the price on many brands by more than 70 cents a pack.
The latest increase in the federal tax is by far the largest since its introduction in 1951, when it was 8 cents a pack. It's gone up six times since, each time by no more than a dime, until now.
Apart from the tax haul, public health advocates argue that squeezing smokers will help some to quit and persuade young people not to start.
But it was a debate the country didn't have in a presidential campaign that swore off higher taxation.
5272
Post by: Fallen668
Great way to twist some words there chief. It really does not take a genius to know that the "raising taxes" was on Income tax. Besides... why are you getting offended by this and not the state's tax increase on cigarettes also? Oh wait... Texas is a conservative state and the conservatives can do no wrong. It wasn't a big deal when the state raised prices $1.00 a pack on Jan 1 2007. Whatever... we know you dislike President Obama.
Im just glad I quit smoking 2 years ago. Though I must admit I miss it every fething day. Especially when reading things like this.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
What a close minded world you live in Sir to believe that only conservatives can dislike Obama, and that only conservatives can twist words to further their interests. Does being that far on the left really blind you so? I know it can on the right, I used to consider myself conservative until I realized that both are full of feth.
5272
Post by: Fallen668
Why thank you... though I would not consider myself far left. I lean very heavy on the authoritarian side.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
I'm sorry, the apparent close mindedness seemed full of a rather liberal nature, though the same could be switched to that of conservative nature had you have attacked a liberal.
Or I am completely missing the internet sarcasm, to which I must apologize for as well, for I do not have a good rebuttal.
I like the idea of a Military Federation, also an Imperialistic Government, and well anything with a good military.
5394
Post by: reds8n
In the UK you know that the tax on ciggies will go up every budget, is this not the case in the USA then ?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
At least it's an optional Tax. You can opt to give up smoking, saving even more money in the long run.
Reminds me of my former Assistant Manager (when I worked for an Opiticians). She would complain and whine about her low wage, how she was always skint at the end of the month, her rent was so high (Which it wasn't. At all. £325 for a 2 Bedroom Flat? I would KILL for that price) etc etc. All whilst smoking 40+ Fags a day, at a price of £5.50 a packet. Lets do the maths!
£5.50x2 = £11 per day. Now, 365 days in a year, means £4,015 per year up in smoke. FOUR GRAND. And she wonders why she is skint?
Now I too am a smoker, though I stick to Roll ups, preferring the taste and the price. £11 for 50 grams of Golden Virginia will last me a fortnight. On top of that you have skins and filters, but even so, it costs me under £20 a fortnight for my filthy habit. Most of that is Tax money, which in the UK's case, I don't mind, seeing as it's pumped into the NHS, which is overburdened by idiots like me with self inflicted diseases.
Sorry, went a bit soapboxy there.
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
reds8n wrote: In the UK you know that the tax on ciggies will go up every budget, is this not the case in the USA then ?
I think the point he was trying to make was that the Lord of Change, was preaching that he wouldn't tax Middle and Lower class people any more than they had been, yet this bill mainly targets those he promised not to tax due to statistically the lower and middle class people smoking more than upper class persons.
That being said I can't possibly hope to understand Mr. Frazzled.
5394
Post by: reds8n
I understand that, I was more surprised at the fact that it was a surprise that tax on ciggies had gone up. Revenue raising aside the exorbitant tax on tobacco in the UK is there also to discourage people from smoking.
How pricy are ciggies stateside anyway ? Pack of 20 marlboror over here cost you a little under £6.00.
221
Post by: Frazzled
BrotherStynier wrote:reds8n wrote: In the UK you know that the tax on ciggies will go up every budget, is this not the case in the USA then ?
I think the point he was trying to make was that the Lord of Change, was preaching that he wouldn't tax Middle and Lower class people any more than they had been, yet this bill mainly targets those he promised not to tax due to statistically the lower and middle class people smoking more than upper class persons.
That being said I can't possibly hope to understand Mr. Frazzled.
True on all points.
Understanding Frazzled-Take a gorilla. Make the gorilla cranky. Give the gorilla athlete's foot, a pile of bills, and make him wear a tie. Voila -you now know Frazzled!
10906
Post by: VictorVonTzeentch
I figured that might be the cause of you ire Frazzled.
And I'll keep that understanding in mind.
reds8n wrote:I understand that, I was more surprised at the fact that it was a surprise that tax on ciggies had gone up. Revenue raising aside the exorbitant tax on tobacco in the UK is there also to discourage people from smoking.
How pricy are ciggies stateside anyway ? Pack of 20 marlboror over here cost you a little under £6.00.
In the state of Washington the price generally tops out at $5 a pack I think, depending.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
How is this a tax on just middle class and lower class. It's a tax on ciggs. As been said before taxs on ciggs have been going up pretty much every other year or so. But then taxes on a lot of things have increased. And so have costs and prices on just about everything. Just smoke weed, it's safer and there is no taxes at all.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
umm yea. Why is is disproportionate? Maybe because there are more poor than the rich?
This tax does bother me. It will increase the number of non-smokers (hopefully) and decrease the cost of medical expenses later on.
8021
Post by: JD21290
prices are allways going up here, hence why i get friends to pick them up for me when they go away from time to time 
and this makes a bitter sweet change.
usually everything is blamed on smokers, now we are helping people out?
5272
Post by: Fallen668
It is just trying to make an issue of a non issue. Please try again when he raises a real tax that effects everyone. This is an optional tax like drinking... which by the way a lot of people at state level are looking at to raise as well.
As for smoke prices. They are going at $5.50 to $8.00 a pack depending on where you buy for marlboro. I still remember when I began smoking that I got pissed off that the place I used to buy from went from $2.00 to $2.25... those were the days.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
He should just raise the cigarette tax so much that the poor couldn't afford to smoke at all. Than they'd actually be paying less instead of more.
8021
Post by: JD21290
they are £5 a pack here, so a bit high.
blackfang, do you smoke atall?
its easier said than done, not being able to afford them will cause problems, and also result in alot more crimes as to stealing to get money for them, pretty much like drugs.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Fallen668 wrote:It is just trying to make an issue of a non issue. Please try again when he raises a real tax that effects everyone. This is an optional tax like drinking... which by the way a lot of people at state level are looking at to raise as well.
As for smoke prices. They are going at $5.50 to $8.00 a pack depending on where you buy for marlboro. I still remember when I began smoking that I got pissed off that the place I used to buy from went from $2.00 to $2.25... those were the days.
Well when he raises taxes on anything bought by Fallen668 I'll be sure to be concerned.
Thanks to the new Congress Ex Post Facto laws and Bills of Attainder are back. Yee ha!
752
Post by: Polonius
In other words:
"Campaign promises aren't always what they sound like"
"Cash strapped governments will try to raise taxes"
"Nobody cares about the working poor and middle class"
These and other hot breaking stories next!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Vice taxes like this are already fairly common at a state level, this isn't surprising. We have a smoking tax here in Maine already. The cash for healthcare/stimulous/bailouts/infinite war/roads has to come from somewhere. Any tax that discourages an unhealthy practice and feeds directly into health care reform seems well designed in my eyes.
As for not taxing the poor, maybe the poor shouldn't waste their fething money on cigarettes.
5470
Post by: sebster
If I was to get all pedantic I'd point out that this is an excise. Then someone would like get just as pedantic and point out that an excise is a form of tax and I'd say not really and we'd have this long debate quoting wiki articles. Good thing I'm not pedantic
In all honesty, the increase in excise on cigarettes is pretty crappy. Not because of broken campaign promises or anything like that, because that's pretty clearly not what Obama was talking about. Nah, this is crap because it's raising revenue by targeting a politically easy source. There are lots of reasons to put an excise on a product, but they don't really work with cigarettes. It isn't a limited resource. They don't have any related externalities (people argue health costs, but that doesn't work because smokers die sooner, saving health resources).
I know the American system is pretty screwy so new programs need to be funded with things like this, but its still pretty crappy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
There are lots of reasons to put an excise on a product, but they don't really work with cigarettes. It isn't a limited resource. They don't have any related externalities (people argue health costs, but that doesn't work because smokers die sooner, saving health resources).
A man that dies healthy at 80 will have wasted less of my money than a man that spent 12 years going in and out of cancer therapy on the national dollar and dies at 52. Smoking is a large factor on healthcare costs, and I don't want to pay for the idiotic vices of another for the same reason your insurance is going to make you pay more. Your killing yourself for no discernible reason other than your lack of self control.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Here is the the actual breakdown.
The cigarette tax rate goes from $.39 per pack to $1.0066 per pack;
The tax on snuff goes from $.585 per pound to $1.51 per pound;
The tax on pipe tobacco goes from $1.0969 per pound to $2.8311 per pound;
The tax on RYO goes from $1.0969 per pound to $24.78 per pound (not a typo).
Additionally the definition of RYO has been expanded to include cigar wrappers to address the "blunt wraps" issue;
The tax change to small cigars (cigars weighing less the three (3) pounds per thousand will be :
- $.25 per pack
Cigarette Papers will increase to $0.0315 per 50 papers.
Cigarette Tubes will increase to $0.063 per 50 tubes.
Large cigars will increase to $0.4026 per cigar.
Notice the increase in roll your own (RYO). It also doesn't show the floor tax on all tobacco products (excluding Large Cigars) that is being implemented on the first as well. The floor tax is the reason why cigarettes went up about two weeks ago (the federal tax) and are going up again (the floor tax).
It's targeting a demonized minority because it is easy. Those who are ok with it are the same people who all to easily forget that eventually they will get around to something you do that other people may not like. The government will ban fried foods, candy bars, raise massive taxes on beer, liquor, and tobacco. Houses that face east/west save more money on energy so all houses must do it. No cake for childrens birthdays. It's bad for them and Childrens Services will take them away. Give them a pear and a hug.
I also notice the same people who typically want to tax us into oblivion with universal health care are the ones that complain about the health costs of taking care of people. With or w/o booze and smokes we are going to die and more than likely it is going to cost money. It isn't as if everyone stopped smoking we will be immortal and no one will whither away but just die peacefully in our sleep, thus relieving the taxpayer of the burden of having to care for them.
Now mines more of an ideological opposition. First, if you want to fund health care for kids, there are better ways to fund it than trying to throw a tax onto something you are taxing to try and get people not to buy in the first place. If 50% stop smoking you just screwed your revenue stream to help the kids. Secondly, all we are heading toward are increased bootleg cigarette sells. Expect an increase in crime. A defacto prohibition might as well be a prohibition. And last, because I don't like the road we are heading down as far as the government getting more and more involved in our personal decisions. It doesn't always matter if it is the healthy choice, part of freedom is the freedom to make bad choices. We can't make everyone thin, we can't make every kid an honor student just by virtue of showing up to class, and keeping people from smoking won't create immortality. Even if they quit something else is still going to kill people (we all owe one death, no exceptions) and it will be something that people shouldn't have to pay for.
ShumaGorath wrote:A man that dies healthy at 80 will have wasted less of my money than a man that spent 12 years going in and out of cancer therapy on the national dollar and dies at 52. Smoking is a large factor on healthcare costs, and I don't want to pay for the idiotic vices of another for the same reason your insurance is going to make you pay more. Your killing yourself for no discernible reason other than your lack of self control.
People don't want to pay for yours either but we have to. There are people who hate hunting but if there is a hunting accident we'll still have to pay for it. If only that jackass hadn't tried to get some venison. People go play football in the yard and get injured, why should anyone pay for that. Pacifists don't want to pay for new bombs and bombers but still have to. We are always paying taxes for one thing or another we don't want to. You don't get to say I want to pay for Health Care, but not for him, and I'll fund the Army, but not the Navy.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
It's targeting a demonized minority because it is easy. Those who are ok with it are the same people who all to easily forget that eventually they will get around to something you do that other people may not like. The government will ban fried foods, candy bars, raise massive taxes on beer, liquor, and tobacco. Houses that face east/west save more money on energy so all houses must do it. No cake for childrens birthdays. It's bad for them and Childrens Services will take them away. Give them a pear and a hug.
In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] In broader, especially recent, pragmatic usage, the term slippery slope argument alternately refers to a non-fallacious argument that such undesirable events are rendered more probable. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
While the logic in a slippery slope argument is invalid, its conclusion may still be true.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I know it must be your new favorite toy, but it fails here for a couple of reasons. This isn't the first "small thing". I'm not looking at snow on top of a hill and saying that it will become a snowball and roll down the kill and become a giant snowball that will crush the town. I am looking at eh snowball as it is already part way down the hill. This is a part of a sequence of events that has been ongoing. I'm also not saying the snowball is going to kill us all, but it will deposit snow in our streets. We have seen this before and it always always, always leads to even greater restrictions, never less.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually you need to do a breakout of people who had "healthy" vs. "unhealthy" lives. I'd bet good money the essential costs are the same. The last year or so of care is intensely expensive, and barring accident, we're all going to have that last year or two of expense. In the end you will die of something and it won't be cheap.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:A man that dies healthy at 80 will have wasted less of my money than a man that spent 12 years going in and out of cancer therapy on the national dollar and dies at 52. Smoking is a large factor on healthcare costs, and I don't want to pay for the idiotic vices of another for the same reason your insurance is going to make you pay more. Your killing yourself for no discernible reason other than your lack of self control.
Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/15293006.html
Thing is, I'm not a smoker, but a tax should be there for a reason. If it's just to raise revenue, then that is best levied through income tax and broad based sales tax. Picking special products because they're politically vulnerable is bad policy.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote: In the end you will die of something and it won't be cheap.
Another whine about the rising costs of ammunition ? 
752
Post by: Polonius
I oppose a tobbaco excise tax for three reasons:
1) I smoke cigars, and they are now more expensive, and smoking two stogies a week is in no way unhealthy.
2) I'm not happy with the way smokers are being targetted by taxes and laws.
3) I think that this excise tax, like all excise taxes, is inherently regressive and most affects the working poor, whose children are the ones being helped by SCHIP. I think taxes should go up, but there should be a broad increase in the federal income tax (at nearly all levels, but including a solid progressive element), not an excise that mostly hurts the working classes.
there's also my inner hippy bleeding heart reaction, which is essentially asking "isn't taxing cigarettes in many ways taxing a disease?" I mean, people are addicted, right? Which is why they smoke.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yea. 9mm prices jumped like $4 a box in the last week, coincidentally at the same time Malf took over Dakka. Thats of course when you can find ammo now-jeez everything is major sold out for months now.
Coincidence?
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:Actually you need to do a breakout of people who had "healthy" vs. "unhealthy" lives. I'd bet good money the essential costs are the same. The last year or so of care is intensely expensive, and barring accident, we're all going to have that last year or two of expense. In the end you will die of something and it won't be cheap.
Another note on 'healthy' lives:
Regular exercise is an important part of remaining in good health. It also increases your risk of serious injury by a large amount. These injuries are incredibly expensive to treat. I tore my ACL when I was a Freshman in high school, it cost something on the order of 100k to have it reconstructed. This was in 2000. Even the many ankle sprains I've had cost nearly 1k each after diagnosis, treatment, and anti-inflammatory meds.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.
How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet. It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.
221
Post by: Frazzled
My dad was healthy as an ox. No smoking, drinking, lots of exercise, ate well, took his meds. The bills in the last year I'd put at over a 100K as well, and thats only with a final stint of a week, and nothing dragging out.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:
Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.
How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet.
Really? So you're saying that because the study is Dutch it couldn't possibly have any relevance. Because the Netherlands are a wonderful place where the actuarial tables are upside down.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052
How about a US study then? Ready to concede the point?
221
Post by: Frazzled
ShumaGorath wrote:
Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.
How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet. It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.
Modquisition on:
Gentlemen, this thread has been reported. Dakka Rule #1 remains required here. Let us remember to be polite, no matter our opinion or view of other posters.
Modquisition off.
5534
Post by: dogma
ShumaGorath wrote:
How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet.
I didn't realize that the Dutch were not biologically, or fiscally, comparable to Americans. Though I suppose Amsterdam could be the next step in evolution.
ShumaGorath wrote:
It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.
Right, people don't have the right to die until they generate enough wealth to compensate society for their demise. 
In a less ridiculous sense, its really difficult to measure the entropic effects of any given vice. Excessive smoking causes lung cancer. Excessive drinking causes cirrhosis. Excessive cheese causes heart attacks. And excessive intake of processed foods causes a deficiency in trace minerals, which leads to things like osteoporosis. Shall we tax them all to regulate consumption in order to maximize the time we can force people to function as productive societal cogs? And what would that magic, regulated number be?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Even taking those out, its all a fallacy. You are going to die from something. In modern western medicine that means the medical establishment is going to fight it or at least prolong your life. Thats usually very very expensive. Unless we all play Logan's Run it doesn't matter.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet. It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.
Didn't see the stuff you added in your edit...
Obviously there's a value to human life, but that's really up to the individual smoker to decide. If he doesn't want to give up smoking to live a little longer, that's up to him. That's fine says government, they don't outlaw smoking or restrict its use, they just tax it, and they justify this because on the grounds that smokers put such a strain on the healthcare system. Except they don't, a smoker is cheaper than a non-smoker.
So follow the argument and cut the false morality, please.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Even taking those out, its all a fallacy. You are going to die from something. In modern western medicine that means the medical establishment is going to fight it or at least prolong your life. Thats usually very very expensive. Unless we all play Logan's Run it doesn't matter.
Yes, but if put your hands up in the air and say that despite all the studies its just too expensive to know whether smoking costs the health system more than it saves... then you're left with no fiscal reason to justify an excise on cigarettes.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I didn't realize that the Dutch were not biologically comparable to Americans. Though I suppose Amsterdam could be the next step in evolution.
My point was that they have a different health care system then we do. Which should have been painfully obvious since we were talking about a U.S. tax effecting the U.S. healthcare system.
Right, people don't have the right to die until they generate enough wealth to compensate society for their demise.
Yeah, that makes about as much sense as concluding that smoking is better for national healthcare because its kills people earlier (in which case "national healthcare" becomes kind of an odd name). Productivity and tax payout are just as important as costs. If the overall net effect is increased national healcare costs, but increased revenue by taxes and GDP growth by capable individuals living longer then the net effect is still positive. Not only that but its positive and people are living longer and in better health, which is a goal of any good society.
How about a US study then? Ready to concede the point?
Why don't you post a study that does more than just note that someone living half as long doesn't see the doctor as much as someone living twice as long. Thats obvious and also inconclusive because it doesn't take into account other necessary factors in the equation. Post better studies.
9407
Post by: Lint
Polonius wrote:In other words:
"Campaign promises aren't always what they sound like"
"Cash strapped governments will try to raise taxes"
"Nobody cares about the working poor and middle class"
These and other hot breaking stories next!
QFT!!
sebster wrote:
Thing is, I'm not a smoker, but a tax should be there for a reason. If it's just to raise revenue, then that is best levied through income tax and broad based sales tax. Picking special products because they're politically vulnerable is bad policy.
This is my main problem, and you put it perfectly. Politicians talk all they want about saving money by reducing smokers- via raising taxes to make them less affordable. But in the long run it is simply an attempt to raise immediate revenue so that our government can cover it's ass. While I think it appropriate to use a tobacco tax to fund health care, unfortunately, here in California we all too often see that tax money being raided to cover for a bloated beurocracy, and budget shortfalls. By the time the money makes it's way down the ladder of director's payrolls and million dollar commitees, all that's left is a fraction of what was raised to actully fund nessecary projects such as health care and prevention. With the latest round of gimmick budgetry here in CA, we saw our elcted officials play hot potato with our tax money, borrowing from education to pay for roads, borrowing from the lottery revenue to pay for children's health, employee furloughs to reduce expenses. It has become a sad case of robbing Peter, to pay Paul. We approve taxes to pay for a particular problem, but the money ends up going somewhere else because these a-holes spend money like it grows from the ground.
And this is what it comes down to: Most of us don't have a problem with taxes, they are like death, unavoidable. But it is infuriating that when our hard earned money is being bitten of peice by piece, and then wasted.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Polonius wrote:I oppose a tobbaco excise tax for three reasons:
1) I smoke cigars, and they are now more expensive, and smoking two stogies a week is in no way unhealthy.
2) I'm not happy with the way smokers are being targetted by taxes and laws.
3) I think that this excise tax, like all excise taxes, is inherently regressive and most affects the working poor, whose children are the ones being helped by SCHIP. I think taxes should go up, but there should be a broad increase in the federal income tax (at nearly all levels, but including a solid progressive element), not an excise that mostly hurts the working classes.
there's also my inner hippy bleeding heart reaction, which is essentially asking "isn't taxing cigarettes in many ways taxing a disease?" I mean, people are addicted, right? Which is why they smoke.
1) Yes one still is unhealthy. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117323
2) I agree here. But smoking is a choice. You decided whether the cost is something you want to endure.
3) I am considered middle class/working class. How does this affect me, a non-smoker.?
If you are comparing cigarette addiction to a real disease... obviously any more logic on my part would not help
5534
Post by: dogma
ShumaGorath wrote:
My point was that they have a different health care system then we do. Which should have been painfully obvious since we were talking about a U.S. tax effecting the U.S. healthcare system.
Yeah, where the intermediary is the average US citizen. The biological realities of humanity are largely invariable, and so even if specific costs might change from system to system the proportionality between the cost of caring for smokers and non-smokers should remain largely the same. Especially in a place where smoking is arguably far more significant as a cultural artifact.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that makes about as much sense as concluding that smoking is better for national healthcare because its kills people earlier (in which case "national healthcare" becomes kind of an odd name). Productivity and tax payout are just as important as costs.
Yes, they are. But explicitly stating that productivity is implicit in the right of a person to choose his vices is just legislating morality. It will not work. People have, and will, kill themselves over it. Even if the act of expediting that death is something as mundane as a cigarette.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If the overall net effect is increased national healcare costs, but increased revenue by taxes and GDP growth by capable individuals living longer then the net effect is still positive. Not only that but its positive and people are living longer and in better health, which is a goal of any good society.
The goal of any good society is the perpetuation of happiness. Whether or not that also means long life or good health is besides the point.
That aside, longer life does not necessarily mean enhanced productivity. As ever the law of diminishing returns remains in effect. Having more productive people only makes a difference if you have things worth producing. For example, China and India have been the most populous nations on Earth for the vast majority of their history, yet they are only now becoming real economic powers. A surplus of labor allows those nations to attract industry due to low production costs. As people earn more they demand more goods. Price increases with demand, and the entire system creeps away the entry level positions which first generated growth as successive generations compete for jobs in non-labor intensive markets. Standard of living goes up, but productivity falls. Which is more valuable?
241
Post by: Ahtman
frgsinwntr wrote:3) I am considered middle class/working class. How does this affect me, a non-smoker.?
So you don't think being robbed is bad as long as it doesn't happen to you? How about a tornado tearing through a town? Is that your criteria: only if it affects your personal space? If you can't understand why that might be nearsighted, obviously any more logic on my part would not help.
5534
Post by: dogma
frgsinwntr wrote:
If you are comparing cigarette addiction to a real disease... obviously any more logic on my part would not help
I suppose you think alcoholism is also a choice? Regardless of its nature as a psychological condition the primary reason for characterizing any condition as a disease is to encourage the sufferer to seek help.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually, studies have shown it is harder to quit smoking then quit heroin. Yergh!
9132
Post by: PanamaG
ShumaGorath wrote:Any tax that discourages an unhealthy practice and feeds directly into health care reform seems well designed in my eyes.
Who are you to decide what is healthy and unhealthy/ok and not ok? Who are you to decide what people should do? I dont mind a tax on cigs, the only thing that I really despise is people who support a tax on cigs to get people to stop smoking. Thats no ones fething business but my own (I dont smoke btw), it's just another liberal grab at power disguised as "helping the little guy."
ShumaGorath wrote:
As for not taxing the poor, maybe the poor shouldn't waste their fething money on cigarettes.
I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever, so as an aside how the feth anyone can be all for handouts is beyond me. Either a bleeding heart with misplaced sympathy or a poor person! Hey why work when you can get it for free, that's a great plan for a society. Didn't work in the colonies, doesn't work now. But now I'm off on a tangent...
752
Post by: Polonius
frgsinwntr wrote:[
1) Yes one still is unhealthy. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117323
2) I agree here. But smoking is a choice. You decided whether the cost is something you want to endure.
3) I am considered middle class/working class. How does this affect me, a non-smoker.?
If you are comparing cigarette addiction to a real disease... obviously any more logic on my part would not help
That study shows what each cigarette does to a person that is smoking regularly, not having one or two a week, but I will amend and say that having a few cigars a week is not a notably unhealthy behavior. You can tell because insurance companies don't care about it when selling medical or life insurance.
Well, if anybody that you do business with is a smoker, you can expect them to charge a little more for stuff. Just because it doesn't impact every middle class person doesn't mean it's not a disproportionate tax.
Well, my comment at the end was made with the qualifier that it was my hippie, bleeding heart side which most people that know me isn't a very large or active part of my persona. Addiction is treated like a disease, diagnosed like a disease, and there is genetic predisposition to it. I'm not sure I'd go to the mat to prove that it is a disease, but dismissing it completely as a disease is a bit short sighted, I think.
752
Post by: Polonius
PanamaG wrote:
I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever, so as an aside how the feth anyone can be all for handouts is beyond me. Either a bleeding heart with misplaced sympathy or a poor person! Hey why work when you can get it for free, that's a great plan for a society. Didn't work in the colonies, doesn't work now. But now I'm off on a tangent...
Don't feed the troll!
9132
Post by: PanamaG
What? That isn't literal you know.
Someone who smokes a cig beneath the bleachers in high school isnt going to lie in his death bed thinking "oh man, if I didnt have that cig Id have 11 more minuted with my familiy!
One cig wont hurt you. 11 minutes is an average taken from a huge study of average ages and yadda yadda yadda. Its not cut and dry......
9132
Post by: PanamaG
Polonius wrote:PanamaG wrote:
I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever, so as an aside how the feth anyone can be all for handouts is beyond me. Either a bleeding heart with misplaced sympathy or a poor person! Hey why work when you can get it for free, that's a great plan for a society. Didn't work in the colonies, doesn't work now. But now I'm off on a tangent...
Don't feed the troll!
Oops! Forgot that wasn't obvious to everyone.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
"I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever."
You can sit here and tell me you think people are poor because they are lazy? what about the millions that have lost work here in the usa. the millions more around the world who lose everything in war and conflict. What about people who are born in 3rd world places, or in remote areas of the kentucky mountains where they can barely scrape out enough to eat, but can't afford to leave. And regardless of how you feel about this tax, Ciggs are un-healthy. All in all I'd rather have Uncle Sam tax what I do rather than what I make.
Edit: Damn I fed it... NOOOOO
11643
Post by: BlackDracoSLC
I have a problem considering cigarette smoking a disease. The entire habit is controlled by you, You decide to start, you decide to continue, you decide to stop. I understand it's no easy feat to do, but it can be done. Until things like cancer and diabetes can be stopped and started at will by people suffering from them, I don't believe cigarette addiction should be labeled as a disease. It seems to me that it's people trying to give themselves more reasons to try not to quit by trying to take the power out of their hands (i.e. I can't help it - it's a disease. I can't stop it myself.)
9132
Post by: PanamaG
SH - Of course, that's why I said most. But then again they put themselves in the position to be fired. You cant be fired if you are at the top of the ladder, and most of the jobs lost recently have been lower rung type jobs. Again, please dont skip the "most"....
Just saying, its all choice.
Also, I am just talking in terms of the US, where this whole thing is an argument. Of course poor people in africa dont count, because they dont have the choice and freedom we have here in America. If people are poor here it is because they didnt make the most of their resources. In 3rd world countries they simply have no resources so they cant really be blamed..
Where is this troll you are speaking of?
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
I think it may qualify as a Mental disease, some sexual disorders and should be treated as such. I've seen to many people ruin jobs and families. Any addiction is a harsh mistress. All you have to do is look at all the money poured into quitting programs and the prices people are willing to pay for a pack to see that it is some kind of disease, even though it's a self inflicted one.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
Double post :(
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
I fail to see how something is a disease due to being destructive and difficult to solve.
You could classify pollution, or war, or tons of other things as diseases by that system.
10207
Post by: namegoeshere
I think it's very dakkadakka how flamey this is. Cigarette prices have gone up, don't they always? They do kill people, and lead to long drawn out hospital stays, that even in America tax payers will have to pay for some times. How is that a sign that Obama is an obastard? (He might or might not be, it's too early to tell)
If it was up to me though, I'd help the economy by reducing the price of cigarettes, and coke/ any other stimulants. Whatever means to get people working more. Then allow management to use whips to motivate workers. And allow workers to break into rich peoples houses and steal stuff. The workers will enjoy the toys, and the rich will re-buy them.
Also no more massive payouts to wives of rich people, they aren't working so adding nothing to the economy, and the rich schmuck who got fleeced will get all depressed and his company will fail.
Note I'm not being totally serious.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
That aside, longer life does not necessarily mean enhanced productivity. As ever the law of diminishing returns remains in effect. Having more productive people only makes a difference if you have things worth producing. For example, China and India have been the most populous nations on Earth for the vast majority of their history, yet they are only now becoming real economic powers. A surplus of labor allows those nations to attract industry due to low production costs. As people earn more they demand more goods. Price increases with demand, and the entire system creeps away the entry level positions which first generated growth as successive generations compete for jobs in non-labor intensive markets. Standard of living goes up, but pre-capita productivity falls. Which is more valuable?
Someone should do a study on it! In general I agree, I don't know the exact falloff of productivity in our society, and I don't know if keeping smokers alive longer does help in the long run. I believe it does, and I believe that smoking is a false happiness (as is any addiction). Though more than alcohol or even most narcotics smoking does little to bring happiness to the smoker. Its an addiction that is made possible by societies fixation on it as a token of high status (though not so much these days). It does very little to support its own dissemination because it brings so little to the smoker except stress and a thin wallet.
Who are you to decide what is healthy and unhealthy/ok and not ok? Who are you to decide what people should do? I dont mind a tax on cigs, the only thing that I really despise is people who support a tax on cigs to get people to stop smoking. Thats no ones fething business but my own (I dont smoke btw), it's just another liberal grab at power disguised as "helping the little guy."
I get in other peoples business. I'm not some woodsie libertarian or some sign waving hippie. Nor am I a bible thumping censor mom. I am me. I think humans are inevitably going to make stupid decisions and that collectively we are a lot smarter then we are alone. Smoking is an idiotic habit that diverts funds away from methods of self improvement, and harms health. It brings very little happiness to those that do it and it is an addictive substance that once started is very difficult to stop. If we can shorten our deficit a little bit by getting people to stop breathing in addictive cancerous fumes then I'm all for it.
Don't feed the troll!
You're every bit the troll I am polonius. As for smoking being a disease, it's not a disease. It's an addiction. An addiction isn't something to look down on people for, its something you help them come out of then look down at them for it. Being a dick to a person addicted to something that they attempt to find some measure of happiness in isn't going to help them. They'll just use it all that much more.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
namegoeshere wrote:I think it's very dakkadakka how flamey this is.
Hey guys, I just destroyed a Land Raider with a deffrolla, but my friend says it doesn't work with ramming. Who's right?
5394
Post by: reds8n
It brings very little happiness to those that do it
I take it you've never smoked.
If you do, and you're not some helpless 60+ a day 40 year habitkindo' fool, it does. A nice pint and a fa..wordfilter.. ciggie is wonderful. Post meal smoke ? Ace-- and an aid to digestion.
And as for that post coitial one..... that, arm in arm with the lady/fella of your choice is truly wonderous.
Seriously, people don't just smoke due to peer pressure or addiction. When you do it, it is really fething lush. Especially when you roll it round in your fingers or get that cool exhale out through your nose and back into mouth like in 80s rock videos.
It's not like orgasm good but it is a very sublime pleasure that if you've never smoked you just won't get.
8303
Post by: sexiest_hero
OK how about this, say your company failed or the big mill in your town closed, as has happened in states like Ohio. Do you not think the Government they have been taxed by over the years not give them a helping hand. Or should they say "your company failed because you were lazy, now starve!" Have you seen what an angry starving horde of poor out of work people can do to a government.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
reds8n wrote:It brings very little happiness to those that do it
I take it you've never smoked.
If you do, and you're not some helpless 60+ a day 40 year habitkindo' fool, it does. A nice pint and a fa..wordfilter.. ciggie is wonderful. Post meal smoke ? Ace-- and an aid to digestion.
And as for that post coitial one..... that, arm in arm with the lady/fella of your choice is truly wonderous.
Seriously, people don't just smoke due to peer pressure or addiction. When you do it, it is really fething lush. Especially when you roll it round in your fingers or get that cool exhale out through your nose and back into mouth like in 80s rock videos.
It's not like orgasm good but it is a very sublime pleasure that if you've never smoked you just won't get.
Exactly. "Cigarettes don't bring happiness" reveals a pretty inexperienced viewpoint. I did smoke at one time, and when I did I loved it. I quit because I didn't want to anymore, that simple. I have willpower.
Shuma try a cig every kid should before their 16th birthday. Just like a beer. It will make a man of you
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I've smoked. Try meth for a real high.
There are reasons I have the beliefs I do, smoking is nothing. You get the same psychological impact from working out. Cigarettes don't bring much happiness compared to what that same money and time could do elsewhere, and certainly aren't a net positive compared to the withdrawals it brings with it.
I quit because I didn't want to anymore, that simple.
Why didn't you want to any more exactly? You sure did seem to love it.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
Yeah, lots of things bring a high, success, cardio, sweet lovin with a smokin broad.
Cigs are one of the easier sources for a lot of people. No commitment, no time, you can do it on the toilet FFS. Just $5 and you get a pack of 20 surges of good feeling. It has health drawbacks but if thats what you wanna do more power to you.
I quit because I got tired of stopping at the gas station of all reasons. Im an efficient person and I hated losing the time.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Cigarettes don't bring much happiness compared to what that same money and time could do elsewhere, and certainly aren't a net positive compared to the withdrawals it brings with it.
I fully agree they aren't a net positive compared with not smoking or stopping. And they are really a terrible waste of money.
But..time... hmm... I think a large part of the pleasure of smoking in a way is the wasting of time. And it is a quick and easy fix.
But it is a high that does get much less enjoyable generally over time.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ahtman wrote:I know it must be your new favorite toy, but it fails here for a couple of reasons. This isn't the first "small thing". I'm not looking at snow on top of a hill and saying that it will become a snowball and roll down the kill and become a giant snowball that will crush the town. I am looking at eh snowball as it is already part way down the hill. This is a part of a sequence of events that has been ongoing. I'm also not saying the snowball is going to kill us all, but it will deposit snow in our streets. We have seen this before and it always always, always leads to even greater restrictions, never less.
It's nonsense to say that all taxes inevitably increase and beget more taxes. They don't.
Do you remember the Window Tax, or the Beard Tax?
Taxes and excises of all kinds have gone up and down during history, they also differ greatly from country to country.
10207
Post by: namegoeshere
Orkeosaurus wrote:namegoeshere wrote:I think it's very dakkadakka how flamey this is.
Hey guys, I just destroyed a Land Raider with a deffrolla, but my friend says it doesn't work with ramming. Who's right?
AAAARGH! *Track down Orkeosaurus, gets on a plane, goes to his front door, and takes a massive dump on his welcome mat* ;P
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3387085109_57b1610c09_o.png (solution to economic crisis)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak053_FN6F3Jj89.JFSj.SgjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20081011134106AAlnBst (another vital question answered)
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
That mat really tied the room together.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Kilkrazy wrote:Ahtman wrote:I know it must be your new favorite toy, but it fails here for a couple of reasons. This isn't the first "small thing". I'm not looking at snow on top of a hill and saying that it will become a snowball and roll down the kill and become a giant snowball that will crush the town. I am looking at eh snowball as it is already part way down the hill. This is a part of a sequence of events that has been ongoing. I'm also not saying the snowball is going to kill us all, but it will deposit snow in our streets. We have seen this before and it always always, always leads to even greater restrictions, never less.
It's nonsense to say that all taxes inevitably increase and beget more taxes. They don't.
Do you remember the Window Tax, or the Beard Tax?
Taxes and excises of all kinds have gone up and down during history, they also differ greatly from country to country.
I wasn't referring to the taxes, but government overreaching in deciding what is best for us and what is fashionable and what isn't. Fried foods aren't great for you but I don't think the government should ban country fried steak. Having fried chicken every now and then is ok, but eating it all the time is not healthy, but the government shouldn't be deciding what each persons level of moderation should be. The more we allow a government to take power, the more it will keep trying to take. If they don't want people doing it and it is in the best interest of all, just make it illegal and stop pussyfooting around. Barring that don't try to demonize the users and make them pay an unfair share, especially the less economically empowered. Then tying the sale of these godforsaken, evil, terrible things to help pay for childrens health care is just deplorable.
As for taxes, well they are inevitable and accepted...to a point. There always comes a breaking point to anything. I've never said there should be no tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or other items, but that we are getting to the point of overtaxing them unfairly.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
That mat really tied the room together.
That's like, just your opinion man.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, that makes about as much sense as concluding that smoking is better for national healthcare because its kills people earlier (in which case "national healthcare" becomes kind of an odd name). Productivity and tax payout are just as important as costs. If the overall net effect is increased national healcare costs, but increased revenue by taxes and GDP growth by capable individuals living longer then the net effect is still positive. Not only that but its positive and people are living longer and in better health, which is a goal of any good society.
Nobody is suggesting that smoking is 'good' because it kills people. That's a wilful misinterpretation on your part, and you need to stop doing rubbish like that.
I will say it again. You're obviously struggling to keep up so I will type it slowly.
No-one is suggesting smoking is good. It is, however, the choice of individual, and government does not stop adults smoking. But it does say the smokers have to pay a little extra, and among justifications it says this is because smokers cost more, because they get sick and die of cancer. However, multiple studies have shown smokers do not cost more money, they cost less. Therefore it is a bad justification.
Not saying anyone should smoke. Not saying smoking is good. Am saying taxing smoking due to increased healthcare is bad, because there isn't an increase in healthcare costs.
Post better studies.
No, you need to follow the discussion. Now, can you just concede the point so we can all move on. I really don't like being on the same side as PanamaG.
5470
Post by: sebster
PanamaG wrote:Im an efficient person and I hated losing the time.
Then why are you posting on the internet?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Nobody is suggesting that smoking is 'good' because it kills people. That's a wilful misinterpretation on your part, and you need to stop doing rubbish like that.
I'll do that as soon as you stop implying I think that the dutch are somehow nonhuman crab people, rather than the obvious intent of my comments being the comparison between different health systems.
I will say it again. You're obviously struggling to keep up so I will type it slowly.
Clearly, which is obviously why you seem so willing to shout the exact same point that I refuted three posts ago.
No-one is suggesting smoking is good. It is, however, the choice of individual, and government does not stop adults smoking. But it does say the smokers have to pay a little extra, and among justifications it says this is because smokers cost more, because they get sick and die of cancer. However, multiple studies have shown smokers do not cost more money, they cost less. Therefore it is a bad justification.
Except those same studies are incomplete and provide a null answer to the issue. All they show is that it costs the healthcare system less because they live half as long. Direct costs are not the only factor. Someone with AIDS costs the system less too. Should we rescind the laws about syringe safety? Maybe drop the blood screening for donors? Both would "save money" according to the same studies you keep posting.
Not saying anyone should smoke. Not saying smoking is good. Am saying taxing smoking due to increased healthcare is bad, because there isn't an increase in healthcare costs.
And I'm saying that a net increase in total cost can be easily offset by a net increase in tax gain and per capita personal expenditure by an able bodied individual paying into the system over several decades. This is the important part. If half of the U.S. population died suddenly by your logic our healtcare woes would dissapear, except healthcare is based on the taxes payed by citizens. You can't pay taxes when you're dead.
No, you need to follow the discussion. Now, can you just concede the point so we can all move on. I really don't like being on the same side as PanamaG.
Then you should probably read what I actually post. Or just start quoting yourself so that I can see that you're not posting anything new or pertinent.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
sebster wrote:PanamaG wrote:Im an efficient person and I hated losing the time.
Then why are you posting on the internet?
Because I am so efficient I finished what I was supposed to do today early.
148 to 1517 buddy 
6887
Post by: Greebynog
Couple of slightly OT points here.
The definition of 'liberal' used in this thread a few times is frankly baffling. As a (literally) card carrying liberal, let me break it down. Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms. It is a liberal viewpoint to say someone should have the right to make their own mistakes. Liberal and Left wing are not interchangable. Also, left wing and authoritarian are not antonyms. Liberal and authoritarian are. Left wing and right wing are. It is entirely possible to be left wing authoritarian, and far left ideologies often are.
Also, shuma, how are people who die at 84 going to contribute more tax than those who die at 77 (going off average death ages of non-smokers and smokers from one of the studies posted)? Don't Americans retire?!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms.
Do you support right of individual citizens to bear arms, with no taxation greater than that of other products?
Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?
Do you support the right of individuals to associate with who they want to free from interference?
Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
5394
Post by: reds8n
Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?
Define "harm others".
Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions. 
Do you support the soverign rights of otehr nations not to be invaded and occupied for little mroe than political showboating ?
Do you support people always being given a criminal trial, even if it is claimed they are "terrorists" ?
This is a fun new game.
6887
Post by: Greebynog
Frazzled wrote:Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms.
Do you support right of individual citizens to bear arms, with no taxation greater than that of other products?
Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?
Do you support the right of individuals to associate with who they want to free from interference?
Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
Yes to all bar number one. And it's the 'harm others' bit that makes me wary of the first, but that's a different argument, and one that's entirely different for me, being a Brit.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:
Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?
Define "harm others".
Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions.
Do you support the soverign rights of otehr nations not to be invaded and occupied for little mroe than political showboating ?
Do you support people always being given a criminal trial, even if it is claimed they are "terrorists" ?
This is a fun new game.
And back atcha reddy
Do you support
*The right to arm bears?
*The right to a man cave in any marriage
*The right of every male to a big screen TV?
*the right to be free from sock puppet harassment?
5394
Post by: reds8n
*The right to arm bears?
*The right to a man cave in any marriage
*The right of every male to a big screen TV?
*the right to be free from sock puppet harassment?
1. Except Pandas. Evil fethers.
2. Only if accessed by a pole/s that you have to slide down.
3. This is a federal issue, this should be mandatory.
4. Impossible. You're talking madness. This cannot be done.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:
*The right to arm bears?
*The right to a man cave in any marriage
*The right of every male to a big screen TV?
*the right to be free from sock puppet harassment?
1. Except Pandas. Evil fethers.
2. Only if accessed by a pole/s that you have to slide down.
3. This is a federal issue, this should be mandatory.
4. Impossible. You're talking madness. This cannot be done.
1. Except Pandas. Evil fethers.
****True that. I remember back in 38 when they tried to take voer the world.
2. Only if accessed by a pole/s that you have to slide down.
****Well, yea. I thought that was a given
3. This is a federal issue, this should be mandatory.
****You know it.
4. Impossible. You're talking madness. This cannot be done.[/
**** Hey a man can dream. One day a hero will come to free us from sock puppet oppression.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Greebynog wrote:Frazzled wrote:Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms.
Do you support right of individual citizens to bear arms, with no taxation greater than that of other products?
Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?
Do you support the right of individuals to associate with who they want to free from interference?
Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
Yes to all bar number one. And it's the 'harm others' bit that makes me wary of the first, but that's a different argument, and one that's entirely different for me, being a Brit.
So you're not a liberal then...
6887
Post by: Greebynog
I'm a liberal who qualifies his beliefs. I think that's better than being blindly following ideology regardless of circumstance. Call me a pragmatic left-leaning liberal then. Bit more of a mouthful though.
5394
Post by: reds8n
The stories I hear of the 1738 Bamboo wars...  .. so much violence for so little nutritional worth.
Worst thing is... we fancied another one 10 minutes after finishing it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Greebynog wrote:I'm a liberal who qualifies his beliefs. I think that's better than being blindly following ideology regardless of circumstance. Call me a pragmatic left-leaning liberal then. Bit more of a mouthful though.
Betcha can't say that with a mouthfull of marbles (or like Grotsnik)
"fwawmwawiw wewv wee'in wi'eral"
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Greebynog wrote:Couple of slightly OT points here.
The definition of 'liberal' used in this thread a few times is frankly baffling. As a (literally) card carrying liberal, let me break it down. Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms. It is a liberal viewpoint to say someone should have the right to make their own mistakes. Liberal and Left wing are not interchangable. Also, left wing and authoritarian are not antonyms. Liberal and authoritarian are. Left wing and right wing are. It is entirely possible to be left wing authoritarian, and far left ideologies often are.
Hmm... sounds like one of those things. In America, at least, liberal definitely means "left-wing," or relating to the Democrats, although that's obviously not the original definition. What you describe would be more likely called being a "classical liberal" or a libertarian (or just "civil-libertarian", depending on your economic views).
Of course, they still say they "support personal freedoms," but that's like conservatives supporting "less government," which is to say it's more rhetoric than substance much of the time.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Of course, they still say they "support personal freedoms," but that's like conservatives supporting "less government," which is to say it's more rhetoric than substance much of the time.
A true libertarian actually is not "more rhetoric than substance."
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Oops, no, that was in reference to liberals.
(And liberals mostly meaning the Democratic Party.)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Gotcha.
241
Post by: Ahtman
reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions.
That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
Actions like this are probably just going to push citizens to start growing and raising their own crops for personal use. Same with the brewing of alcohol. I'd like to see what the government tries to do when they add on a tax to tax you for having a garden.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions.
That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.
Exactly.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Ahtman wrote:reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions.
That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.
News reports appear to indicate that it's more without unions you just don't work. full stop.
241
Post by: Ahtman
reds8n wrote:Ahtman wrote:reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions.
That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.
News reports appear to indicate that it's more without unions you just don't work. full stop.
What? That is very poorly phrased (no offense). I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Ahtman wrote:reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?
That's why we have unions.
That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.
Depends on where you want your coercion coming from. The union that fights for your "rights" or the company that fights for its bottom line. Both are going to be pushing you around. I'll agree though that some bad unions can be pretty awful (automotive for instance, or any union that was just a mob front back in the day). Remember though, unions came into existence because employers rarely have the workers interests in mind, they aren't just some pointless plague on capitalism.
9132
Post by: PanamaG
ShumaGorath wrote:Remember though, unions came into existence because employers rarely have the workers interests in mind to the extent unions do , they aren't just some pointless plague on capitalism.
Fixed. Companies want well for their employees, without them they are nothing. But when unions get too high on the hog you have situations like with GM. A company is like a living being, it is best in its natural state unharmed and not messed with. When unions come along and start putting so much pressure on the bottom line, the company doesn't function as well.
Also remember without corporations there would be no jobs and no unions. To me unions like the automakers union are like a parasite rather than symbiote, but this time around when the parasite kills its host its going to realize what it has done and that it cant function alone.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
To me unions like the automakers union are like a parasite rather than symbiote, but this time around when the parasite kills its host its going to realize what it has done and that it cant function alone.
Tell that to coal miners. Wallmart workers. Pre union construction crews. Federal laws have largely filled the void that unions once did, but no, it's not in the companies interests to want well for their employees. It is in the companies interests to grow the company, which may or may not have anything to do with the safety and health of their employees. Unions that grow too large can certainly be a problem, as are poorly directed ones. However they exist for a specific reason and that reason is the dehumanizing nature of capitalistic enterprise which turns humans into commodities. China has no unions, I'm sure chinese workers love living in their factories (and yes, those conditions are illegal under chinese law). Any nation without unions also has poor workers rights. The workers right to organize and demand a "fair" deal is paramount in any humane society, the specifics of what is fair is the issue. The automotive unions demand way too much and were allowed to become too powerful. Their demands of representation became a burden to the companies and caused their workers to actually lose out. Its a balancing act.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
JD21290 wrote:its easier said than done, not being able to afford them will cause problems, and also result in alot more crimes as to stealing to get money for them, pretty much like illegal drugs.
Fixed your post.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
I don't understand why they are increasing the tax on cigarettes. If the US gov't wants to really do some good, they need to raise the tax on alcohol. Get more tax revenue, discourage the use, decrease the number of DUI/DWI accidents, decrease insurance costs caused by said accidents.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Do injuries from DUI's account for more money than the health care costs of smokers? If so, fine, a tax increase may be in order. If not, then you're just making gak up.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't think all social benefits or harms can be reduced to accountancy values.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Isn't that how they do it in Tort law? If I cut off your arm and you sue me, they calculate the value of your arm for compensation purposes.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:I'll do that as soon as you stop implying I think that the dutch are somehow nonhuman crab people, rather than the obvious intent of my comments being the comparison between different health systems.
What material differences do you suggest would result in significant cost differences in the treatment of smokers between the Dutch and US systems? Simply arguing they're different isn't really good enough.
Except those same studies are incomplete and provide a null answer to the issue. All they show is that it costs the healthcare system less because they live half as long. Direct costs are not the only factor. Someone with AIDS costs the system less too. Should we rescind the laws about syringe safety? Maybe drop the blood screening for donors? Both would "save money" according to the same studies you keep posting.
You claim you get it, but clearly you don't. If you got it you wouldn't be claiming anything as silly as an analogy with syringe safety. So I'll say it again, the argument that cigarettes should be taxed because they cost the health system more money is bad because studies have shown they cost the health system less.
Now, let's compare that very simple statement to your AIDS & syringe safety analogy. I'm talking about tax justified (falsely) on grounds of externalities. Which you're comparing to regulation of a potentially dangerous product for public safety. Your analogy makes no reference to any point in my argument, not to tax, or the actual cost of cigarettes. If you're following the argument you can see instantly that the analogy makes no sense. I'm being charitable in assuming you're not following the argument, because the idea that you understand the argument but think that analogy is useful is far more damning.
And I'm saying that a net increase in total cost can be easily offset by a net increase in tax gain and per capita personal expenditure by an able bodied individual paying into the system over several decades. This is the important part. If half of the U.S. population died suddenly by your logic our healtcare woes would dissapear, except healthcare is based on the taxes payed by citizens. You can't pay taxes when you're dead.
How many taxes are paid by people between the ages of 77 and 84?
Then you should probably read what I actually post. Or just start quoting yourself so that I can see that you're not posting anything new or pertinent.
You've got cheek, I'll give you that. No substance, no coherent argument, but plenty of cheek. Well, that'll get you into some places I guess.
5470
Post by: sebster
PanamaG wrote:Because I am so efficient I finished what I was supposed to do today early.
148 to 1517 buddy
I never said I was efficient. Besides what am I supposed to do, people keep saying stuff that's wrong.
5470
Post by: sebster
ShumaGorath wrote:China has no unions, I'm sure chinese workers love living in their factories (and yes, those conditions are illegal under chinese law). Any nation without unions also has poor workers rights.
In fact, China has the largest union in the world, it has more than a hundred million members. Unfortunately, it's almost entirely under government control and as a result does little to improve the conditions of its workers.
And that's really what the issue is all about. Not unions are good or unions are bad. Or having more unions or less unions. It's just about having good unions and not bad unions.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ozymandias wrote:Isn't that how they do it in Tort law? If I cut off your arm and you sue me, they calculate the value of your arm for compensation purposes.
That's like life insurance. There are accountancy values set for a life or limb, which are used in insurance cases, criminal compensation awards and disability pensions. These are usually based on some calculation of the lost earning ability plus the enforced extra expenses such as getting your bath adapted.
I was talking about putting an accountancy value on a tailgate party, or your local school's nativity play; those kind of social events which are an important part of life. I realise it's somewhat outside the topic, however everything in life isn't about the bottom line.
10895
Post by: Ironhide
Ozymandias wrote:Do injuries from DUI's account for more money than the health care costs of smokers? If so, fine, a tax increase may be in order. If not, then you're just making gak up.
Let's see.....
Taken from the WHO: Smoking-related diseases cost the United States more than $150 billion a year.
Taken from the MADD site: Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.
That's $185 Billion, of which about a third of that is paid by the victim and not the drunk driver. This doesn't include the increased insurance rates the people involved will also receive.
Smoking-related diseases usually come from long-term use, while any person who can get their hands on alcohol and a car can potentially cause a fatality.
8194
Post by: CorporateLogo
Unions are an archaic institution that do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons to "handle" any problems with the workforce!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Unions are an archaic institution that do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons to "handle" any problems with the workforce!
do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons
nothing but hamstring honest businesses
honest businesses
Lol, wut?
5534
Post by: dogma
CorporateLogo wrote:Unions are an archaic institution that do nothing but hamstring honest businesses, it's past time we went back to the days when companies hired Pinkertons to "handle" any problems with the workforce!
Are you trying to say that 'honest businesses' should hire thugs to deal with workers who want more money? That seems neither honest, nor business like.
8194
Post by: CorporateLogo
ITT I post a joke about the Pinkertons that is tangential to the current discussion and everyone thinks I'm being serious about dismantling unions D:
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:
And that's really what the issue is all about. Not unions are good or unions are bad. Or having more unions or less unions. It's just about having good unions and not bad unions.
In many professions this is a true statement.
6887
Post by: Greebynog
I think we're all forgetting the most important point.
8471
Post by: olympia
Ironhide wrote:I don't understand why they are increasing the tax on cigarettes. If the US gov't wants to really do some good, they need to raise the tax on alcohol. Get more tax revenue, discourage the use, decrease the number of DUI/DWI accidents, decrease insurance costs caused by said accidents.
You can have my booze when you pry my bottle from my limp, unconscious body!
10895
Post by: Ironhide
Hey, I'm with you there. I just think increasing the "smoking" tax is like beating a dead horse. I'd be surprised if tobacco use isn't gone in another ten years with all the restrictions put on where you can smoke, tax increases (NC is thinking of increasing the state tobacco tax), and all the lawsuits tobacco companies have been hit with.
|
|
